[JCFolsom]

Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Are amendments to the Constitution allowed to contradict the original Constitution? For example, would it be Constitutional for the people to vote in an amendment that establishes a state religion and outlaws all others? Nope not allowed. The Supreme Court can change the interpretation of laws over time based on views though. Like the equal protection clause changed f+rom benig separate to equal to being fully integrated as being equal.

Amendments are amendments because they alter the original constitution. If they are opposed to previous text, the newer text takes precedent. If, somehow, the constitution were amended to re-enslave all black people, that would be the law of the land, and no court could legally overturn it. Constitutionalists rely on some goddamn piece of paper to guarantee their rights, but that's just stupid. As long as you have a centralized body with legitimized aggressive force (i.e. a state), all your rights are illusory, mere privileges granted as long as it isn't too inconvenient for the controllers of that force.

[JustMel]

I think that what people seem to not realize is that the piece of paper you are given is a CIVIL piece of paper. The only difference is who performs the ceremony. If you go to a judge or JP it's considered a civil union. If you have a member of the clergy perform the ceremony it's religious one.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by phej To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see why not, I believe that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person (contradicted by the 13-15 amendments). Amendment 18 repealed by the 21st. The first amendment, while wise, is not immutable. How the repeal of the first amendment would affect legal rights, I don't know.

Oh sorry about that, I thought LastMohican was commenting on the actual Constitution. Yes you are correct that amendments maybe be instituted or repealed but the Constitution can not. Its also good to note that its a very lengthy process to repeal or institute amendments.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by JCFolsom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Amendments are amendments because they alter the original constitution. If they are opposed to previous text, the newer text takes precedent. If, somehow, the constitution were amended to re-enslave all black people, that would be the law of the land, and no court could legally overturn it.

There's something called the supremacy clause, you actually couldn't re-enslave all black people with an amendment to a state constitution.

[TravelnTrain]

	Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that what people seem to not realize is that the piece of paper you are given is a CIVIL piece of paper. The only difference is who performs the ceremony. If you go to a judge or JP it's considered a civil union. If you have a member of the clergy perform the ceremony it's religious one.

Factually incorrect. In every state, for heterosexuals, the end result is a marriage, not a civil union, regardless of who performs the ceremony, and that entitles the couple to over 1,000 federal benefits.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by TravelnTrain To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Factually incorrect. In every state, for heterosexuals, the end result is a marriage, not a civil union, regardless of who performs the ceremony, and that entitles the couple to over 1,000 federal benefits.

It's not considered a legal union unless you have the piece of paper issued by the state and they don't care if you have a civil or religious ceremony.

It doesn't matter what you call it, marriage for the religious, or civil union for the non-religious, it's still a civil piece of paper. Yes, you get the benefits for what it's worth but you also don't have to go to divorce court, etc.

Furthermore, while you won't get the same tax breaks--which is just wrong-- you can use legal means to become each others POA for medical/legal decisions in the event of death or incapacitation. You can leave your estate to them with a will. Granted they can't get your social security but chances are it's not that much anyway and a legal spouse doesn't always get the SS either depending on their income. You can have the same last name by legally changing it. You can have a ceremony and all that.

I don't care who gets "married" or has a "civil union" so long as they're consenting adults. I say either abolish the tax breaks for heterosexual couples or open it up to all adults regardless of which gender they're uniting themselves with.

Religious people are continually yelling about the "moral" breakdown of society due to "broken families" yet they're against allowing gay couples to unite their families under the law with the same benefits as everyone else. Typical hypocrisy.